The Purpose of the Passion (Not all believers thought Jesus had to die for our sins)

Dallas Morning News ^ | 2-20-2004 | Susan Albach/Hogan

[GeronL]

For some, the controversy is over who killed Jesus.

But for others, it's why he died – whether his death was necessary to atone for the sins of humanity.

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which opens in theaters Wednesday, raises questions other than anti-Semitism for some Christians. At issue is whether the death of Jesus was necessary to reconcile the world to God – a view no longer sacrosanct in some circles.

The movie, reflecting the deeply held views of its director, answers affirmatively on the side of traditional Christianity. But in churches and religious schools, some believers are raising doubts

"It doesn't make sense to me that God would need to be satisfied by sending his son to be killed," said Kip Taylor, a religion major at Texas Christian University. "That's a vengeful God and not a God I want to worship."

For most Christians, Jesus' death has long been considered the fulfillment of Scripture – entirely sacrificial, virtuous and redemptive.

"It's the central point of what Christians believe," Mr. Gibson told ABC's Primetime.

But it's a belief being questioned like never before by some mainline Protestants, particularly the historical peace churches and liberal theologians.

"My death is no more important than my birth or every day in between. Why should it be any different with Jesus?" said Kelly Webb, after a class on the Gospels at TCU. "If all that mattered was his death, why did he spend three years teaching and preaching?"

The Gospel of Mark (10:45) states unequivocally that Jesus died "as a ransom for many." I Peter 2:24 says, "In his own body, he brought your sins to the cross."

And the Letter to the Hebrews is filled with sacrificial language about Jesus.

Paul's letters have been the primary biblical basis for asserting that Jesus died as a ransom for human sin. But modern scholarship tools now allow Christians to see other views in the sacred texts.

"Historically, the church has homogenized all the voices in Scripture and made them fit this understanding of God," said Dr. Elizabeth Johnson of Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga.

A specialist on Paul, she believes his sacrificial references are misinterpreted.

"It's not that God is mad and Jesus takes the licks for us," she said. "Paul's much more interested in what it means to say that Jesus' death changes the structures of the universe, brings in a new creation and makes life out of death."

Some biblical passages portray Jesus as an innocent man who didn't deserve his fate, scholars say. But others verses suggest that his death was foretold from the beginning – that he had a God-given mission to die.

"Mel Gibson comes down on the side that says crucifixion was a necessary part of God's plan for salvation," said Dr. Adele Reinhartz, a New Testament scholar from Canada whose forthcoming book, Jesus of Hollywood, is due out this the summer.

If Jesus didn't die for sin, the ramifications are enormous for Christians. The church's doctrine of original sin is called into question. So, too, the meaning of redemption, salvation and Jesus' mission on earth.

"It's just bad theology to say God had to kill his son as a payback for sin," said Dr. Sandra Schneiders, a New Testament scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif. "It makes God sound bloodthirsty."

Perhaps, she said, redemption is found in Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God. Maybe he came to earth to show humanity how to live – to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, to stand in solidarity with the marginalized.

Wanna read the rest???

[GeronL]

Jesus was a liberal social worker in other words, and we are all nuts.

It was a major article in last Saturdays paper, and it will be interesting to see what response they decide to print. If any.

[GeronL]

Or maybe he died simply for his unpopular, even subversive beliefs rather than for the sin of the world. That kind of thinking goes against classical atonement theology. "It's our belief," Mr. Gibson told Primetime, "that by the sin of the first people, original sin, that the gates were closed to us, to eternal life, and that his sacrifice as a redeemer of all mankind was to open the gates to all of us again." That viewpoint dominated the early centuries of the church, when the primary statements of faith were written. The Nicene and Apostles' creeds punctuate beliefs in the virgin birth, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection – but say nothing about Jesus' teachings. The most popular atonement theologies combined aspects of the ransom theory (Jesus' death freed humanity from Satan's hold), the satisfaction theory (Jesus' death makes amends for humanity's sin) and sacrificial theory (Jesus' death is the ultimate sin offering to God). "Atonement theologies say our connection to God is through Jesus' suffering," said the Rev. Flora Keshgegian, a theologian at the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest in Austin. "Others have wanted to stress that connection is through Jesus' humanity." Suffering is so integral to atonement theory that in interviews, Mr. Gibson interchanges the phrases "the Crucifixion" and "the sacrifice." From his vantage – and that of the shapers of Christian doctrine – there is no other way to understand the cross. "Mel is not trying to get the record straight about who killed Jesus," said Dr. Daryl Schmidt, head of the religion department at TCU. "He's providing a visual way of understanding his version of atonement theory." It's shock-and-awe theology that says the level of agony endured was a measure of the depth of God's love for humanity. Only a few seconds of the movie are given to resurrection, and virtually none to Jesus' life. The R-rated movie is so blood-splatteringly brutal that theologians have accused Mr. Gibson, a Catholic, of embellishing the Gospels. A Catholic archdiocese has cautioned that Jesus' suffering has been torn from the context of the Resurrection. Churches usually stress that the life, death and Resurrection must be understood together. That's because without the Resurrection, the cross is meaningless, said Dick Davis, pastor of Peace Mennonite Church in Dallas. "What brings salvation is that God says the cross is not the end of the story," he said. The film's focus is on Jesus' final hours, when the Gospels say he was arrested, whipped and hung on a cross to die. Evangelical leaders invited to advance screenings say the movie accurately reflects the Gospels – a claim some biblical scholars dispute. "There's no Gospel ever written that tells it quite this way," said Dr. Schmidt, a New Testament specialist. "He's pulling one line from Matthew and another from John and creating propaganda in the service of the church's atonement theology." Some churches are promoting the movie as the "greatest evangelical tool in 2,000 years" (overlooking, perhaps unintentionally, the New Testament). Across the country, congregations have bought out tickets for the opening days of the movie. Christians accustomed to the tepid crosses of Easter pageants will be jolted by the film's depiction of "just how much Jesus suffered" for them, said the Rev. Troy White, a Baptist minister from Mt. Pleasant in East Texas. "When they were driving the nail in his hand, it was like I was doing that," he said. "I saw myself there. I saw how he died for my sin. I was shaking." Suffering, he said, is not something that spa-pampered Americans are used to seeing. He called the movie a "scriptural reality check." Evangelical singer Christy Nockels said the movie made her rethink Jesus. "I guess I'd always thought since he was God's son he probably didn't feel pain or that God didn't make him suffer," said Ms. Nockels, of the husband-wife duo Watermark, based near Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Gibson, who said he put more than $25 million of his own money into the project, told Primetime that the movie represents his artistic vision of the Crucifixion, based on his reading of the Gospels. In Mr. Gibson's world, the best of Catholicism is pre-1960s and in Latin. It's a world where the crucified body of Jesus still hangs on crosses to remind believers not only of God's sacrifice, but that there's no easy path to salvation. Protestant churches favor crosses without Jesus' body to emphasize his Resurrection, rather than his bloody death, as the cornerstone of their theology. Other Crucifixion movies, such as The Last Temptation of Christ, imply more violence than they show. But The Passion of the Christ is relentless. Mr. Gibson insists that's because Jesus' death was horrific. From that suffering comes redemption, he insists. "It's excruciating to watch, particularly when Jesus was being beaten," said Don Donahue, an executive for the Rocketown Christian record label near Nashville. "I was feeling sick. I was weeping. But I came out with a deeper desire to serve the Master." E-mail shogan@dallasnews.com

---

Thats the rest, I changed my mind about excerpting it.

[GeronL]

Please remove that last post.

[hellinahandcart]

Wanna read the rest???

There's more? I'm still hurling from exposure to Kip and Kelly.

[narses]

For most Christians, Jesus' death has long been considered the fulfillment of Scripture – entirely sacrificial, virtuous and redemptive.

"It's the central point of what Christians believe," Mr. Gibson told ABC's Primetime.

But it's a belief being questioned like never before by some mainline Protestants, particularly the historical peace churches and liberal theologians.

Here is the problem with ignoring the Apostolic Succession. If every man is his own Pope, then we can decide that Jesus did NOT die for us.

[AFreeBird]

Geez-O-Pete, you can't have a resurection without a death.

[GeronL]

These people should not be calling themselves christians if they think he was some sort of social worker.

---

Or maybe he died simply for his unpopular, even subversive beliefs rather than for the sin of the world.

That kind of thinking goes against classical atonement theology.

"It's our belief," Mr. Gibson told Primetime, "that by the sin of the first people, original sin, that the gates were closed to us, to eternal life, and that his sacrifice as a redeemer of all mankind was to open the gates to all of us again."

That viewpoint dominated the early centuries of the church, when the primary statements of faith were written. The Nicene and Apostles' creeds punctuate beliefs in the virgin birth, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection – but say nothing about Jesus' teachings.

[GeronL]

Its too late to get a letter in the papers' religion section tomorrow but I will write one anyway and to this so-called writer.

[narses]

"First, the essence of saving faith is that Jesus Christ died for my sins."

So you say. Read what others say here. Note - The Catholic Church agrees with you, Our Lord died for your sins and mine. Many flavors of so called Protestants do not agree.

[Frank_2001]

Nothing wrong with being your own Pope...just like there's nothing wrong with representing yourself in court or taking out your own appendix;))

[squarebarb]

Of course he died for our sins. Original sin is that part of our nature that is animal,i.e., sexually chaotic, uncivilized and a predator.

But maybe the liberal theologians think that's just fine.

[GeronL]

Don't start a religious debate between protestants and Catholics. I will point out that Mary, Joseph and all the others cannot hear your prayers and aren't divine. Only Jesus can and is. Lets not get into theology.

[GeronL]

The Catholic Church agrees with you, Our Lord died for your sins and mine. Many flavors of so called Protestants do not agree.

I consider the Catholic Church to be pretty much mixed flavors with all the liberal groups out there. If it keeps going the way its been going the next Pope could be a NAMBLA member.

[Cold Heat]

so called Protestants do not agree.

This one does and so does everyone I know that saw the movie.

There seem to be some Evangelical sects that are critical, but who cares.

Focus on the Family is a big supporter as far as I know. And, so are some 800 different ministers from different churches with different Theologies.

I saw the film and have been changed in a way that I thought impossible.

[narses]

All the Elect in Heaven can and do hear our prayers. They can and do pray for us. They are ALIVE and can do just as the prayer chains in your church do, they can pray TO GOD for us. So said the Gospels and the earliest Fathers of the Church. No Catholic claims that Mary, Joseph or any Saint is divine. To say what you've said is to spread venomous, anti-Catholic bigotry. If done intentionally, that would be sinful. I assume you know no better. Now you do.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, the idea that Jesus Christ had to die for the sins of mankind was debunked by no less a theological scholar than St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas reasoned -- and his logic is so simple that this point is often overlooked -- that an all-powerful God could have Redeemed mankind simply through an act of His will.

Hence, St. Thomas concluded that the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not just a salvific act on the part of God, but had to serve another purpose as well. If I remember correctly, he postulated that the Incarnation -- aside from the redeeming aspects of it -- also served as a perfect (in that it was Divine) example of humility, compassion, and mercy for mankind to follow. In assuming a human nature, Christ served as a perfect Teacher for the human race because God was no longer a "distant" entity (in the limited capacity of human understanding) occupying a place beyond the comprehension of human beings.

Along these lines, the most remarkable passages in the New Testament are those that describe the Temptation of Christ by Satan after He had been in the desert for forty days. If you read that dialogue carefully, you'll see that Christ "resists" the three temptations (the word "resist" is utterly meaningless in this context, since Christ was incapable of sin) not in a dismissive manner by asserting His own power over Satan, but by responding to Satan's temptations in ways that a human being was fully capable of responding.

[rwfromkansas]

"Dr. Sandra Schneiders, a New Testament scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif."

That is your first problem right there....women religion professors have wacky heresies.

The biggest reason why people say this stupid bile (excuse my language) that somehow Jesus did not have to die for our sins, that there was another way (as if God would have actually killed his son if there did not need to be a sacrifice for our sins).

He was the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." God killed him because unless there was a sacrifice of the Son, of somebody who could be a SECOND ADAM and SON OF MAN to be OUR SUBSTITUTE, there was no way for true redemption and reconciliation.

Jesus had to die.

[hellinahandcart]

The Nicene and Apostles' creeds punctuate beliefs in the virgin birth, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection – but say nothing about Jesus' teachings.

Oy.

Why would they say anything about His teachings? They are CREEDS. We recite them in church, as a declaration of what WE believe about Jesus. It's one part of the service. The teachings are another.

Really, I'm appalled by some of the twisted thinking in the article.

[rwfromkansas]

I will admit that you have a good point there. But, what do you do when the folks in charge are corrupt? Luther had no choice.

[narses]

I understand. Most protestants I know would be horrified at the idiots quoted here, but the fact is that ignoring the Apostles and their clear and God Inspired successors leades to acceptance of such nonsense. This is why divorce, contraception and abortion -- and today sexual deviance celebrated, happens in so many so called "churches".